------------------------------------------9/05 - Scott writes ...Mr. Niednagel - You stated your grandmother did not believe in dinosaurs because they were used
to support evolution. You said you'd probably believe the same thing.
Don't you think this preconcieved bias makes everything on your site irrelevant to science?
------------------------------------------

Thanks for the question. I'm not going to defend the notion that I have no bias whatsoever when it comes to my worldview of evolution and creation. As I've stated so many times before, everyone brings to the table some amount of bias, and the only variable that can be expected is the amount of that bias.

My grandmother grew up a Christian in a world much different than that of today. She didn't have the Discovery Channel to watch, nor did she ever take an interest in paleontology, archeaology, etc. She never saw an actual dinosaur bone, nor ever watched scientists out in the field digging for dinosaurs. The subject of dinosaurs, in fact, was not nearly as popular then as it is today, nor were most Christians given any alternative points of view regarding their origin, place in history, etc. It was straight evolution, no questions asked, and certainly no Biblical alternative theories given.

In such circumstances, yes, I would have chosen my faith above hearsay. Not facts, mind you, but hearsay, as she had never been given any tangeable evidence to see and observe for herself. If, when given irruftable evidence, one continues to look the other way, such is true and dangerous bias. Such, however, had never been given to her before.

Faith above hearsay, that's what it boils down to. She now knows that dinosaurs did in fact exist, but she also now has an evidence-driven Biblical framework to fit them into, which, although you yourself may consider incorrect, is certainly not built on faith alone.
Thanks for writing,

Jordan Niednagel

------------------------------------------9/05 - Destin Michael writes ...Mr. Long - Dear Jordan/Josef, I wrote to you previousely about the Eohippus being an ancestor to modern equines. Is it possible for horses to have relaly come from these animals - because, from what I understand, they had toed feet instead of hooves. Wouldn't that be macroevolution? Thanks again! ------------------------------------------

Hello Destin,

Thank you for your patience in awaiting this response.

Eohippus is not the ancestor to modern horses, but was a creature similar to the rock badger, and was probably a variation of a creature similar to the rock badger. For more information on the so-called evolution of horses, here is two online articles I think would be worth your time (and anyone else who is studying this topic):

Cryptozoology - The study of the hidden animal world, cryptozoology is a science of speculation and surprise, involving the search for animals thought to be extinct to new creatures never before identified.

Creation vs Evolution - What was popularized in 1859 by former Christian turned agnostic, Charles Darwin, has in our day become one of the most hotly contested and sharply dividing issues to be found anywhere.

Dinosaurs - Considerable controversy surrounds dinosaurs, from their place in history to their color, habits, and overall physiology. As viewpoints collide, the search for answers continues.